The Warrior's Way looks like a combination of Once Upon a Time in China and America, Chushingura, Lone Wolf and Cub, and Ninja Assassin with just a touch of The Quick and the Dead.
All it is missing is pirates, dinosaurs, and zombies.
I am so jazzed.
Friday, October 01, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
I Call That Bold Talk For Brotherly Directors -- The Trailer for the Coen Brothers' True Grit
I love the performances of John Wayne and Robert Duvall in Henry Hathaway's classic Western True Grit.
John Wayne manages to simultaneously pander to those who are critical of his earlier Western performances by giving them a "clownish" version of his hero archetype, while bringing a genuine depth of character and emotion to the role. He would expand on this deep performance later in The Shootist where he will leave behind the clown and reveal the strength of performance that had always been the staple of a Wayne role. Wayne's characters had never really been as mockable as his critics wanted them to be, and his portrayal of a clownish version followed by a return to form eviscerates his earlier critics.
Duvall is..well...Duvall. He is a powerful actor to watch and his performance as the nihilistic Ned Pepper is perfect. He delivers frightening lines with a dead pan that demonstrates the character's dissociation from the rest of humanity. Duvall's Pepper is the Nietzschian Overman, he is beyond good and evil and is an expression of Will. His character is a sharp contrast to the classical virtue of Wayne's Cogburn, a character who appears to be filled with vice but in the end has "True Grit."
Glen Campbell is passable in his performance. He neither adds nor detracts from the mood of the film and presents the flashy false hero with some charm. He is the man that everyone believes is the hero because he is handsome and apparently forthright. He is almost too good to be true, but in the end what the cynical may have viewed as illusion is revealed to be true. His heroism isn't false, it is as real as Cogburn's.
Kim Darby's performance as young Mattie Ross is the weakest link in the film, and I've always found it hard to empathize with her character -- even given her compelling mission. She has always come across as more bratty than determined. If a director were to attempt to remake the film, it is this performance that I would seek to change and use as the basis for new interpretation.
It appears that is exactly what the Coen Brothers have done in their upcoming version of the tale. That is, if the teaser trailer is any indication.
I couldn't ask for a better choice of Cogburn than Jeff Bridges, though this will make two Jeff Bridges Christmas must see movies for me this year, and Matt Damon in the Glen Campbell role seems appropriate. Casting Josh Brolin as the dastardly Tom Chaney implies that the film will be darker and the character sterner than the Hathaway version. When I read that Barry Pepper was cast as Ned Pepper, the image seemed as natural as the sharing of last names. Barry Pepper has a likability, akin to Duvall's, that will allow for a wonderfully sinister Ned Pepper.
I wouldn't have thought I could be excited about a remake of True Grit, but then I never would have guessed it would be the Coen Brothers making it.
John Wayne manages to simultaneously pander to those who are critical of his earlier Western performances by giving them a "clownish" version of his hero archetype, while bringing a genuine depth of character and emotion to the role. He would expand on this deep performance later in The Shootist where he will leave behind the clown and reveal the strength of performance that had always been the staple of a Wayne role. Wayne's characters had never really been as mockable as his critics wanted them to be, and his portrayal of a clownish version followed by a return to form eviscerates his earlier critics.
Duvall is..well...Duvall. He is a powerful actor to watch and his performance as the nihilistic Ned Pepper is perfect. He delivers frightening lines with a dead pan that demonstrates the character's dissociation from the rest of humanity. Duvall's Pepper is the Nietzschian Overman, he is beyond good and evil and is an expression of Will. His character is a sharp contrast to the classical virtue of Wayne's Cogburn, a character who appears to be filled with vice but in the end has "True Grit."
Glen Campbell is passable in his performance. He neither adds nor detracts from the mood of the film and presents the flashy false hero with some charm. He is the man that everyone believes is the hero because he is handsome and apparently forthright. He is almost too good to be true, but in the end what the cynical may have viewed as illusion is revealed to be true. His heroism isn't false, it is as real as Cogburn's.
Kim Darby's performance as young Mattie Ross is the weakest link in the film, and I've always found it hard to empathize with her character -- even given her compelling mission. She has always come across as more bratty than determined. If a director were to attempt to remake the film, it is this performance that I would seek to change and use as the basis for new interpretation.
It appears that is exactly what the Coen Brothers have done in their upcoming version of the tale. That is, if the teaser trailer is any indication.
I couldn't ask for a better choice of Cogburn than Jeff Bridges, though this will make two Jeff Bridges Christmas must see movies for me this year, and Matt Damon in the Glen Campbell role seems appropriate. Casting Josh Brolin as the dastardly Tom Chaney implies that the film will be darker and the character sterner than the Hathaway version. When I read that Barry Pepper was cast as Ned Pepper, the image seemed as natural as the sharing of last names. Barry Pepper has a likability, akin to Duvall's, that will allow for a wonderfully sinister Ned Pepper.
I wouldn't have thought I could be excited about a remake of True Grit, but then I never would have guessed it would be the Coen Brothers making it.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Avengers Earth's Mightiest Heroes vs. Iron Man Animated Adventures
My daughters adore the Nicktoons series Iron Man: Animated Adventures. In fact, one of my daughters' favorite games is for me to "fly" her around the house while she wears "Tony's Suit" and becomes "Iron-Keyo!" The show is witty and has excellent and engaging animation.
Next month Marvel Comics is releasing their new Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes series. The new show has many of the same writers as the Nicktoons show, and some excellent voice actors, but if the animation matches the style in the "Micro Episodes," the show will leave a lot to be desired from a visual comparison.
Next month Marvel Comics is releasing their new Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes series. The new show has many of the same writers as the Nicktoons show, and some excellent voice actors, but if the animation matches the style in the "Micro Episodes," the show will leave a lot to be desired from a visual comparison.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Hulu Recommendation Friday -- Raising Hope
What are your thoughts about the new sitcom Raising Hope? I enjoyed it, but I'm wondering just how long they can maintain the raw humor before they slip into the land of the routine.
Any sitcom that features a scene of a father covering his baby's eyes as the baby's mother is being electrocuted for murder is showing a nice audacity, but I hope they can keep it up.
So far I've really enjoyed the performances of Cloris Leachman, Garret Dillahunt, Martha Plimpton, and Shannon Woodward.
Any sitcom that features a scene of a father covering his baby's eyes as the baby's mother is being electrocuted for murder is showing a nice audacity, but I hope they can keep it up.
So far I've really enjoyed the performances of Cloris Leachman, Garret Dillahunt, Martha Plimpton, and Shannon Woodward.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Katy Perry and Elmo Duet Controversial?
I don't normally discuss politics on this blog. This is a pop culture blog and not a political blog, but it seems that some people are dead set on getting their politics mixed into my pop culture.
Apparently an upcoming duet featuring Katy Perry and Elmo is "too sexy" for some parents. You can watch the "offending" video below.
Personally, I don't see anything too risque for children's television. Sure, Katy has a pseudo-Betty Page thing going on, but Betty Page had a Betty Boop thing going on who had a Clara Bow thing going on who had a...
Sometimes I wonder at our modern desire to protect children from sex -- and from violence for that matter.
That said, there is one thing that I want to say about the issue.
When I was growing up The Muppet Show was the "feature celebrities singing new singles" show, and Sesame Street was the show with an underlying pedagogy that taught children numbers and colors etc. There isn't a Muppet Show anymore, but doesn't this Katy Perry number strike anyone as blatantly commercial in a way that "Public Television" stands in contrast to?
I find it ironic that the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse show that I have my twin daughters watch -- which is based on a commercial IP -- has better pedagogy and seems less concerned with overt commercialism than Sesame Street.
I'm not opposed to children's programming having a merchandising aspect. Many of my fondest memories are of my own youthful playtime with toys and games based on children's programs (and vice versa). That's not my point.
My point is the irony that the tax payer subsidized, and pledge supported, programming of a public television show is more commercial oriented -- and is promoting pop-singles -- in a way that a commercial television show isn't. The Mickey Mouse Clubhouse show is played without commercials, doesn't feature modern pop stars (though its theme song was written by They Might Be Giants), and has a better underlying pedagogy than the leading children's television program.
Now if someone can explain to me why my DVDs of older episodes of Sesame Street are labeled with a Parental Warning.
Apparently an upcoming duet featuring Katy Perry and Elmo is "too sexy" for some parents. You can watch the "offending" video below.
Personally, I don't see anything too risque for children's television. Sure, Katy has a pseudo-Betty Page thing going on, but Betty Page had a Betty Boop thing going on who had a Clara Bow thing going on who had a...
Sometimes I wonder at our modern desire to protect children from sex -- and from violence for that matter.
That said, there is one thing that I want to say about the issue.
When I was growing up The Muppet Show was the "feature celebrities singing new singles" show, and Sesame Street was the show with an underlying pedagogy that taught children numbers and colors etc. There isn't a Muppet Show anymore, but doesn't this Katy Perry number strike anyone as blatantly commercial in a way that "Public Television" stands in contrast to?
I find it ironic that the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse show that I have my twin daughters watch -- which is based on a commercial IP -- has better pedagogy and seems less concerned with overt commercialism than Sesame Street.
I'm not opposed to children's programming having a merchandising aspect. Many of my fondest memories are of my own youthful playtime with toys and games based on children's programs (and vice versa). That's not my point.
My point is the irony that the tax payer subsidized, and pledge supported, programming of a public television show is more commercial oriented -- and is promoting pop-singles -- in a way that a commercial television show isn't. The Mickey Mouse Clubhouse show is played without commercials, doesn't feature modern pop stars (though its theme song was written by They Might Be Giants), and has a better underlying pedagogy than the leading children's television program.
Now if someone can explain to me why my DVDs of older episodes of Sesame Street are labeled with a Parental Warning.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Dragon Age Pen and Paper RPG Set 2 in Open Beta
Green Ronin is following in the footsteps of Paizo Publishing and releasing the second boxed set in their Dragon Age pen and paper RPG in an open playtest. You can download the document here.
I am quite fond of the Dragon Age game (as I made clear in an earlier post) and am looking forward to playtesting the rules for higher level characters.
Kudos to Chris Pramas and crew.
I'll let you all know what I think of Set 2 shortly.
The CW's Nikita is Stylish, Sexy, and Soulless
When considering how to approach the CW's new action television series Nikita, I reminded myself of a couple of my core rules to follow when reviewing works of entertainment. In this case, I wanted to make sure that I followed rules #2 and #7. I find that having certain principles of review ensures that a review is as fair as possible to those who made the effort to produce an entertaining product. Making an entertainment product requires a lot of work, and those working on the products do so because they want to entertain the public.
So what are rules #2 and #7 and what are some examples of them in application?
An intellectual property that perfectly exemplifies the importance of rule #2 is Frank Herbert's Dune series of books. If one were to compare David Lynch's version of Dune to the novel one would find numerous differences and omissions, but that would be a disservice to Lynch's brilliance in the film. Lynch's Dune isn't a translation of the novel adapted to the big screen. Instead, it is a story inspired by the book that attempts to tell a similar story through a different medium. It approaches the central conflicts of Herbert's SF masterpiece and builds a film narrative structure around it. It also uses the strengths of the different medium to add new levels of spectacle to the property. One should judge Lynch's work apart from Herbert's because it departs widely from the original property.
The several Syfy series based on Dune, which claim to be "faithful" adaptations, should be scrutinized heavily due to their claims of fidelity. In fact, the failure to live up to the claims of fidelity -- followed by the invention of lame filler narrative -- is one of the chief flaws of the Syfy versions of Dune. The others are low production values and poorly choreographed melee combat (inexcusable in the post HK New Wave era).
Pilot episodes are often clumsy and the actors frequently have yet to build the chemistry that will make a series worth watching week after week. If one were to look only at Star Trek's original pilot, one would wonder how the show ever got picked up by a network in the first place. The concept is solid, but the execution is awkward -- something I often call "pilotitis." Additionally, the first episode shown may not even be the first episode "narratively." When Fox released Firefly, they showed a middle episode as the pilot and viewers where left without any context for the "universe" they were experiencing. As any Browncoat can tell you, this was a shame because viewers missed out on what ended up being a great ride.
I waited to review CW's Nikita for these very reasons. First, I had to judge just how closely they were associating the property with the original Luc Besson film, then I wanted to see if the show's quality improved or declined in the second (and eventually subsequent) episode.
From the advertising posters to the opening scene of the pilot episode, it is clear that Craig Silverstein and crew are making deep associations with the original film. Both posters show Nikita in a similar pose, and both properties begin with the robbery of a drug store for pharmaceuticals. This association continues in the second episode when Nikita's protege Alex is given "two weeks to improve" before the Division decides to "eliminate" her, the identical raising of stakes Nikita faced in the film.
It should be noted that the new Nikita isn't attempting to be a remake by any means, rather it is striving to be a sequel. It is a "what happened next" story that is using the original as a jumping board. This would typically make it a heavy candidate for rule #2 suspension of disbelief, except for the numerous overt parallels between this series and the original. Since it isn't a direct remake the show doesn't deserve "strict scrutiny," but it does deserve "close scrutiny" because it keeps reminding me of its relation to the original property.
So how is CW's Nikita in light of this level of comparison, and how is it in its own right?
Maggie Q is sexy and powerful in her portrayal of an expert assassin who seeks revenge against the organization that did her wrong, but she's too sexy and too competent. Anne Parillaud was vulnerable and sympathetic. She was a fish out of water, who we cared for in spite of the terrible things she does in the first scene of the film. It's easy to like Maggie Q, but it isn't easy to empathize with her. She's too glossy, too strong, too competent -- except when she inexplicably isn't.
The closest parallel to Parillaud's Nikita is Lyndsy Fonseca's Alex character. Fonseca's performance often demonstrates the vulnerability and humanity of the Parillaud version, but these moments are undermined when the show's "twist" is revealed. Alex suddenly becomes less vulnerable and become an instrument of revenge -- losing some of her humanity in the process.
Allow me to elaborate.
Besson's Nikita opens with an amazing image. Four drug addled youths are walking brazenly through the late night streets of Paris. One of these addicts is carrying an axe and dragging a body behind him. It's a disturbing image that plays off of the classic heroic introduction in The Right Stuff with an ironic twist. These young people are attempting to break into a drug store to get a fix, and as it turns out the drug store is owned and operated by the father of one of the youths. There is a touching scene where a father recognizes his child, and is saddened and horrified by what he sees. The tension and sorrow are palpable. Eventually, it almost seems as if everything is going to turn out okay and deescalate when the police arrive and the scene explodes in gun fire. The first two casualties are the father and son, then all of the youth save Nikita who had been curled up under a desk suffering from withdrawal symptoms. A policeman sees this young woman, attempts to gently help her out of the store and is coldly murdered by her. Her addiction has eliminated her humanity. The rest of the film is about -- among other things -- her rediscovering her humanity.
It is a sad story that constantly keeps the audience worried about the protagonist. We forgive her murders because we see her desperation and vulnerability. Besson makes us care about the killer from the first two minutes.
One of the perfect demonstrations of this vulnerability is expressed in the movie poster.
While Nikita is dressed in a sexually appealing outfit, high heels and all, what immediately registers with the viewer is fear and vulnerability. She is in a near fetal position. She is gripping the gun with two hands, and her eyes gaze worriedly off camera at some unseen threat. The viewer is interested in the character because the viewer is worried about her safety and we wonder what it is that she is looking off camera for. Who or what is just off the screen?
In contrast, the new Nikita opens in media res with a robbery of a drug store taking place in mid-action. The robbers are both wearing masks -- one bunny and one pig -- dehumanizing the criminals from moment one. Our first view of Alex, and we later discover Nikita, is as inhuman mask wearing figures. This sharply lessens our ability to empathize with them as vulnerable characters. The bunny mask is captured after the pig mask murders someone on site. The "innocent" bunny is unmasked and we first see the face of Alex, who will be our Alice in the rabbit hole that is Division. Where Besson knew that he could get us to sympathize with a murderer Silverstein makes sure that the new recruit is seen to be "in the wrong place at the wrong time" and doesn't trust the audience can be empathetic. We meet Alex, the "next" Nikita in this scene.
Then we are introduced to Nikita herself, the stylish and sexy Maggie Q. Through voice over and flashback we are given her back story and informed that she intends to get revenge against Division for them killing the man she loved. This is all presented pro forma, its just enough to set up the situation but lacks any emotional weight.
As the story unfolds we are introduced to Michael (Shane West), the "Bob" (Tchéky Karyo), of the series. West's performance isn't as subtle as Karyo's, but it is strong and gets better as the show progresses and his character is given more dramatic conflicts to resolve. Michael and Alex, along with Amanda (Melinda Clarke), are very compelling components in the show. They have a "realism" that is lacking in the almost superhuman confidence of the Maggie Q Nikita. Though the Michael/Alex relationship once more highlights the lack of heart in the television series.
In a scene that parallel's the movie, Michael informs Alex that she has two weeks to improve in training or she will be eliminated. This scene comes after Michael has saved Alex's life -- nominally -- and Michael notifies Alex just as she is about to thank him. It is a scene that works well as Michael is simultaneously asserting that he will not allow himself to become personally involved with a trainee (again), but that he does feel vulnerable in Alex's presence. The scene is good, but is shallow when contrasted to a similar scene in Besson's film.
In the film, Nikita has been acting out upon being forbidden from leaving the training facility. She has frightened the techie, bitten the ear off the judo instructor, danced in celebration of biting off the ear, and painted graffiti all over her room. "Bob" has been notified that she has two weeks to improve or Division will kill her. He enters her room with a birthday cake and a gift -- a poster of Degas' The Star.
He cuts her a piece of cake -- with a switchblade -- and tells her that she is only excelling in painting and dance. He is referring to the graffiti and the dance of humiliation she did earlier, which are demonstrations of her individuality and humanity that he appreciates. The Degas painting's portrayal of dance and the individual amplifies this association. He gives her a brief moment of celebration and kindness, and then drops the bomb that she has only two weeks to live if she doesn't improve. It is a powerful scene. It has a weight entirely lacking in television show.
Throughout the first two episodes Nikita attempts to undermine the actions of Division, but she soon discovers that not all who oppose Division are her allies. Maggie Q's Nikita is continually shown as powerful, competent, and sexy -- with one moment of almost farcical incompetence in the second episode in a "sniper" scene. Since the show is using Alex as the proxy "film Nikita," Maggie Q's Nikita is almost the direct opposite of Parillaud's. A quick cheat for what I am referring to is the marketing poster for the new series. Look at how it parallels and differs from the original film poster.
Here Nikita is holding two guns, one in each hand, and has a spare sub-machine gun at her feet. She is lounging sensually in a chair holding her pistol with one hand and looking at the viewer with confidence and authority. The background is sharp and red, as opposed to foggy and blue. This is the image of a ruthless and attractive killer and not a vulnerable and sympathetic fish out of water. If it weren't for the way that the poster, and show, reference the original as they simultaneously reject it, I wouldn't make note of it. But the fact is that they are constantly referencing the original, and not in an "easter egg" manner.
I have thought long and hard about why the show would both reference the original and then advertise its rejection of the template and the only reason I can come up with is Dollhouse. This version of Nikita is as much a response to Dollhouse as it is to Besson's Nikita. The new show's glossy style and sensuality is reminiscent of Dollhouse, while the story structure is reminiscent of Nikita.
It's almost as if this Nikita is saying, "this is what Dollhouse could have been."
As critical as I am of the lack of emotional weight of Nikita so far, I have to say that I am impressed with their twist. I am impressed enough to watch the show for a few more episodes to see where they go.
At the end of the pilot, we discover that Nikita was the pig in the opening scene and that Alex is being used as her "mole" inside Division to help her destroy it from the inside. It is a nice twist and one that I wasn't expecting.
The show has some interesting moments, but it's going to have to acquire some "heart" if it wants to retain me as a viewer. It can either do this by giving me empathetically dramatic stakes, or by adding humor. I don't care which one they do, but they have to make the show stand apart from its origins.
So what are rules #2 and #7 and what are some examples of them in application?
Rule #2 -- When reviewing a property that has been translated from one medium to another, it is only fair to compare the property to the source material as far as the property relates itself to the original.
An intellectual property that perfectly exemplifies the importance of rule #2 is Frank Herbert's Dune series of books. If one were to compare David Lynch's version of Dune to the novel one would find numerous differences and omissions, but that would be a disservice to Lynch's brilliance in the film. Lynch's Dune isn't a translation of the novel adapted to the big screen. Instead, it is a story inspired by the book that attempts to tell a similar story through a different medium. It approaches the central conflicts of Herbert's SF masterpiece and builds a film narrative structure around it. It also uses the strengths of the different medium to add new levels of spectacle to the property. One should judge Lynch's work apart from Herbert's because it departs widely from the original property.
The several Syfy series based on Dune, which claim to be "faithful" adaptations, should be scrutinized heavily due to their claims of fidelity. In fact, the failure to live up to the claims of fidelity -- followed by the invention of lame filler narrative -- is one of the chief flaws of the Syfy versions of Dune. The others are low production values and poorly choreographed melee combat (inexcusable in the post HK New Wave era).
Rule #7 -- Never judge a new television show purely upon its pilot episode.
Pilot episodes are often clumsy and the actors frequently have yet to build the chemistry that will make a series worth watching week after week. If one were to look only at Star Trek's original pilot, one would wonder how the show ever got picked up by a network in the first place. The concept is solid, but the execution is awkward -- something I often call "pilotitis." Additionally, the first episode shown may not even be the first episode "narratively." When Fox released Firefly, they showed a middle episode as the pilot and viewers where left without any context for the "universe" they were experiencing. As any Browncoat can tell you, this was a shame because viewers missed out on what ended up being a great ride.
I waited to review CW's Nikita for these very reasons. First, I had to judge just how closely they were associating the property with the original Luc Besson film, then I wanted to see if the show's quality improved or declined in the second (and eventually subsequent) episode.
From the advertising posters to the opening scene of the pilot episode, it is clear that Craig Silverstein and crew are making deep associations with the original film. Both posters show Nikita in a similar pose, and both properties begin with the robbery of a drug store for pharmaceuticals. This association continues in the second episode when Nikita's protege Alex is given "two weeks to improve" before the Division decides to "eliminate" her, the identical raising of stakes Nikita faced in the film.
It should be noted that the new Nikita isn't attempting to be a remake by any means, rather it is striving to be a sequel. It is a "what happened next" story that is using the original as a jumping board. This would typically make it a heavy candidate for rule #2 suspension of disbelief, except for the numerous overt parallels between this series and the original. Since it isn't a direct remake the show doesn't deserve "strict scrutiny," but it does deserve "close scrutiny" because it keeps reminding me of its relation to the original property.
So how is CW's Nikita in light of this level of comparison, and how is it in its own right?
Maggie Q is sexy and powerful in her portrayal of an expert assassin who seeks revenge against the organization that did her wrong, but she's too sexy and too competent. Anne Parillaud was vulnerable and sympathetic. She was a fish out of water, who we cared for in spite of the terrible things she does in the first scene of the film. It's easy to like Maggie Q, but it isn't easy to empathize with her. She's too glossy, too strong, too competent -- except when she inexplicably isn't.
The closest parallel to Parillaud's Nikita is Lyndsy Fonseca's Alex character. Fonseca's performance often demonstrates the vulnerability and humanity of the Parillaud version, but these moments are undermined when the show's "twist" is revealed. Alex suddenly becomes less vulnerable and become an instrument of revenge -- losing some of her humanity in the process.
Allow me to elaborate.
Besson's Nikita opens with an amazing image. Four drug addled youths are walking brazenly through the late night streets of Paris. One of these addicts is carrying an axe and dragging a body behind him. It's a disturbing image that plays off of the classic heroic introduction in The Right Stuff with an ironic twist. These young people are attempting to break into a drug store to get a fix, and as it turns out the drug store is owned and operated by the father of one of the youths. There is a touching scene where a father recognizes his child, and is saddened and horrified by what he sees. The tension and sorrow are palpable. Eventually, it almost seems as if everything is going to turn out okay and deescalate when the police arrive and the scene explodes in gun fire. The first two casualties are the father and son, then all of the youth save Nikita who had been curled up under a desk suffering from withdrawal symptoms. A policeman sees this young woman, attempts to gently help her out of the store and is coldly murdered by her. Her addiction has eliminated her humanity. The rest of the film is about -- among other things -- her rediscovering her humanity.
It is a sad story that constantly keeps the audience worried about the protagonist. We forgive her murders because we see her desperation and vulnerability. Besson makes us care about the killer from the first two minutes.
One of the perfect demonstrations of this vulnerability is expressed in the movie poster.
While Nikita is dressed in a sexually appealing outfit, high heels and all, what immediately registers with the viewer is fear and vulnerability. She is in a near fetal position. She is gripping the gun with two hands, and her eyes gaze worriedly off camera at some unseen threat. The viewer is interested in the character because the viewer is worried about her safety and we wonder what it is that she is looking off camera for. Who or what is just off the screen?
In contrast, the new Nikita opens in media res with a robbery of a drug store taking place in mid-action. The robbers are both wearing masks -- one bunny and one pig -- dehumanizing the criminals from moment one. Our first view of Alex, and we later discover Nikita, is as inhuman mask wearing figures. This sharply lessens our ability to empathize with them as vulnerable characters. The bunny mask is captured after the pig mask murders someone on site. The "innocent" bunny is unmasked and we first see the face of Alex, who will be our Alice in the rabbit hole that is Division. Where Besson knew that he could get us to sympathize with a murderer Silverstein makes sure that the new recruit is seen to be "in the wrong place at the wrong time" and doesn't trust the audience can be empathetic. We meet Alex, the "next" Nikita in this scene.
Then we are introduced to Nikita herself, the stylish and sexy Maggie Q. Through voice over and flashback we are given her back story and informed that she intends to get revenge against Division for them killing the man she loved. This is all presented pro forma, its just enough to set up the situation but lacks any emotional weight.
As the story unfolds we are introduced to Michael (Shane West), the "Bob" (Tchéky Karyo), of the series. West's performance isn't as subtle as Karyo's, but it is strong and gets better as the show progresses and his character is given more dramatic conflicts to resolve. Michael and Alex, along with Amanda (Melinda Clarke), are very compelling components in the show. They have a "realism" that is lacking in the almost superhuman confidence of the Maggie Q Nikita. Though the Michael/Alex relationship once more highlights the lack of heart in the television series.
In a scene that parallel's the movie, Michael informs Alex that she has two weeks to improve in training or she will be eliminated. This scene comes after Michael has saved Alex's life -- nominally -- and Michael notifies Alex just as she is about to thank him. It is a scene that works well as Michael is simultaneously asserting that he will not allow himself to become personally involved with a trainee (again), but that he does feel vulnerable in Alex's presence. The scene is good, but is shallow when contrasted to a similar scene in Besson's film.
In the film, Nikita has been acting out upon being forbidden from leaving the training facility. She has frightened the techie, bitten the ear off the judo instructor, danced in celebration of biting off the ear, and painted graffiti all over her room. "Bob" has been notified that she has two weeks to improve or Division will kill her. He enters her room with a birthday cake and a gift -- a poster of Degas' The Star.
He cuts her a piece of cake -- with a switchblade -- and tells her that she is only excelling in painting and dance. He is referring to the graffiti and the dance of humiliation she did earlier, which are demonstrations of her individuality and humanity that he appreciates. The Degas painting's portrayal of dance and the individual amplifies this association. He gives her a brief moment of celebration and kindness, and then drops the bomb that she has only two weeks to live if she doesn't improve. It is a powerful scene. It has a weight entirely lacking in television show.
Throughout the first two episodes Nikita attempts to undermine the actions of Division, but she soon discovers that not all who oppose Division are her allies. Maggie Q's Nikita is continually shown as powerful, competent, and sexy -- with one moment of almost farcical incompetence in the second episode in a "sniper" scene. Since the show is using Alex as the proxy "film Nikita," Maggie Q's Nikita is almost the direct opposite of Parillaud's. A quick cheat for what I am referring to is the marketing poster for the new series. Look at how it parallels and differs from the original film poster.
Here Nikita is holding two guns, one in each hand, and has a spare sub-machine gun at her feet. She is lounging sensually in a chair holding her pistol with one hand and looking at the viewer with confidence and authority. The background is sharp and red, as opposed to foggy and blue. This is the image of a ruthless and attractive killer and not a vulnerable and sympathetic fish out of water. If it weren't for the way that the poster, and show, reference the original as they simultaneously reject it, I wouldn't make note of it. But the fact is that they are constantly referencing the original, and not in an "easter egg" manner.
I have thought long and hard about why the show would both reference the original and then advertise its rejection of the template and the only reason I can come up with is Dollhouse. This version of Nikita is as much a response to Dollhouse as it is to Besson's Nikita. The new show's glossy style and sensuality is reminiscent of Dollhouse, while the story structure is reminiscent of Nikita.
It's almost as if this Nikita is saying, "this is what Dollhouse could have been."
As critical as I am of the lack of emotional weight of Nikita so far, I have to say that I am impressed with their twist. I am impressed enough to watch the show for a few more episodes to see where they go.
At the end of the pilot, we discover that Nikita was the pig in the opening scene and that Alex is being used as her "mole" inside Division to help her destroy it from the inside. It is a nice twist and one that I wasn't expecting.
The show has some interesting moments, but it's going to have to acquire some "heart" if it wants to retain me as a viewer. It can either do this by giving me empathetically dramatic stakes, or by adding humor. I don't care which one they do, but they have to make the show stand apart from its origins.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Jared Sorensen's Inspectres Worth a Look
I walked around the store and examined their inventory, looking to see if they had any games on hand that I didn't own that might interest me. Their friendly staff directed me to a bookcase in their role playing section and listed off a couple of titles. I bought copies of The Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard, and Inspectres.
I was impressed with all three products. The role playing market was in the middle of the d20 SRD Era, and seeing games that had unique rules mechanics was a fresh change. Also fresh was the focus all of these games place on narrative and player empowerment. This was especially true of Jared Sorensen's Inspectres.
Theme
The premise of Inspectres is a simple one. There are mysterious and supernatural things in the world that can pester humanity from time to time. In response to these supernatural pests -- likely due to a large influx of Silicon Valley venture capital -- the Inspectres fully-licensed and insured "Supernatural Investigation & Elimination Service" was formed. The Inspectres are "Fighting the Forces of Darkness, do you don't have to."
Player's in an Inspectres campaign play working class -- and some white collar as well -- heroes who fight the supernatural as their day job. For them, banishing the hordes of Servitors of Garoneesh from Delta Sigma house's basement, is akin to your average bug exterminator completing a termite treatment. While they may be battling threats beyond imagination, and others might find that exciting, it is just their day job. These people have lives outside of their local franchise. Fighting the supernatural is "normal," "routine," and even hum-drum.
This is all key to the setting, because Sorensen believes that goofy isn't funny. He believes that the mundane is funny, and he's right. When a group of players/people try to be funny, they often end up being goofy. When they take something bizarre and attempt to make it normal and dull, the opportunity for real humor begins. Humor is rooted in irony, and having monster hunting be a dull cubicle based Office Space inspired hell is funny.
Mechanics
The underlying mechanics of Inspectres are deceptively simple, and are remarkable at reinforcing the intended style of play.
Inspectres determines the outcome of player's actions through the use of a mechanic I call the Sorensen Narrative Resolution System or SNRS -- and its a system he has used a couple of times before in different guises.
As in other role playing game mechanics, the SNRS gives players ratings in certain areas -- Academics, Athletics, Technology, and Contact (there is also a Cool stat, but most players don't start out Cool). In addition to these individual ratings, the players will have access to their Inspectres Franchise's resources which are called the Library Card, Gym Card, Credit Card, and Bank. All players have access to the franchise's resources, which explains why even untrained incompetents can be successful if they work at a well equipped franchise.
These ratings allow players to roll a certain number of dice, which are then used to interpret the outcome of an action. In a standard role playing game, there would be a target number and beating that target number would mean success and failing to beat the target number would mean that the action didn't succeed. This is where the SNRS differs from other games. In Inspectres, the outcome of the die roll determines who has narrative control over the action. What this means is that the action is described after the die roll, and that the results of the die roll determine whether the player or the game master has control (and how much control they have) of the outcome. Depending on the story being told, a player could gain control of an outcome and narrate failure or the GM could narrate success. It all depends on what the individual believes will create a better story. When the player/GM has only partial control of an action, things get pretty interesting.
The SNRS's narrative approach to roleplaying action resolution is great to see in action. It does require a commitment to attempt to be narratively creative from all of the participants, but if everyone commits it is a great time. There are some additional twists and turns to the system, but you'll have to buy the book to read them.
It really is worth the price of admission of $20 for the small booklet. The game has a fun setting and a simple mechanic that can satisfy hard core role players and serves as a wonderful introduction to the hobby for new players.
Movie
I wanted to note that Sorensen has recently teamed up with the good folks at Reactor 88 studios and is working on a feature length production based on the Inspectres setting. I saw the first 10 minutes at Gen Con this year, and I think that the film looks like a fun production from a DIY studio. We'll see what the end result is, but I think that it will hold up quite well against its chief competition in the "Gaming Movie" genre -- The Gamers.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Red Box Ninjas -- The Return of the Wizards of the Coast Promotional Cartoon
Of the marketing tools Wizards of the Coast used early in the 4e advertising process, my favorites were their short and humorous cartoons. The Tiefling and Gnome cartoon is still on my list of "pick me ups" when I need a good giggle because my day is a bit glum.
"I'm a monster...Rawr!"
On a side note, the Tiefling appears to be from the Bay Area. (Who else says Hella?)
I don't know that the most recent entry, Red Box Ninjas, is as universally funny -- but it does have a certain resonance with me as a Dungeon Master. We've all had groups like the one depicted in this cartoon.
I couldn't resist putting in this old TV commercial advertising the boxed set that got me hooked.
Or the always hilarious 8-bit Theater bit.
"I'm a monster...Rawr!"
On a side note, the Tiefling appears to be from the Bay Area. (Who else says Hella?)
I don't know that the most recent entry, Red Box Ninjas, is as universally funny -- but it does have a certain resonance with me as a Dungeon Master. We've all had groups like the one depicted in this cartoon.
I couldn't resist putting in this old TV commercial advertising the boxed set that got me hooked.
Or the always hilarious 8-bit Theater bit.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Join Me for a Conversation with a Part-Time Sorceress
and Associate Brand Marketing Manager for the Dungeons and Dragons role playing game at Wizards of the Coast, will be joining Shawna Benson and me tonight on Geekerati Radio. We'll talk with Shelly about the D&D Essentials line, what Wizards is doing to reach out to new gamers, and The Real Housewives of New Jersey.
Stop by at 8pm Pacific tonight, or download us later on iTunes. If you listen live, you can call in at (646) 478-5041 or send me a tweet at @ChristianLindke with your questions.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Detective Dee and the Phantom Flame Trailer
If someone used the events leading up to the Eberron setting's Last War as the inspiration for a Wuxia film, they might make a movie much like the one advertised in the Detective Dee trailer.
Detective Dee and the Phantom Flame is the most recent offering from director Tsui Hark.
Tsui Hark was one of the pivotal directors of the 90s Hong Kong New Wave film scene. He brought the knowledge he learned at the University of Texas, Austin's film school to bring "Western" narrative and special effect techniques to Hong Kong films, and helped to create an all together new filmic style. His work on Swordsman and the Once Upon a Time in China series solidified his importance as a film director, though it was his earlier Zu Warriors from Magic Mountain that inspired John Carpenter's masterpiece Big Trouble in Little China.
I have long admired Tsui Hark's films, though I do admit that his work with Jean Claude Van Damme made me worry that he had lost his touch. Knock Off was made in the days just prior to the return of Hong Kong to the People's Republic, and the film seemed to feature all of Tsui Hark's stylistic tricks. It was as if he was desperately trying to capture all of the magic of the HK movement in one film, and it left me baffled. It was trying to be too stylistic and too cool.
My fears were quickly eliminated with the releases Time and Tide and Legend of Zu. In Legend, Tsui Hark demonstrated that he was still capable of innovation within the high fantasy Wuxia genre -- demonstrating his skill at incorporating computer generated special effects.
I am eager to see what Detective Dee has to offer. Having Sammo Hung as action choreographer is particularly exciting. His recent work on films like Ip Man and Kill Zone is truly remarkable.
I have long said that Swordsman II was the "most D&D" film of all time. The action is spectacular and over the top in a way that American films lack, but that players of role playing games hope for. I guess one could argue that D&D 4e is the "most Wuxia" game ever made, but it would have some good competition.
Thursday, September 09, 2010
I Recorded Hellcats to My DVR Because I Love Phineas and Ferb
As the father of identical twin daughters, who turn 2 1/2 this month, I have watched uncountable episodes of Phineas and Ferb. As a Gen X-er, I would have watched this brilliant show without the need of youthful encouragement, but my daughters absolutely adore "The Candace Show." My youngest daughter, by one minute, used to actually squeal with joy when the theme song played -- and my wife and I have heard the phrase "again!" in reference to The Candace Show more often than any other entertainment offering.
The show is fantastic in all the ways that a cartoon can and should be. It has all the humor of The Family Guy with none of the cynicism. And when it comes right down to it, I think my daughters have it right. The reason the show is so effective is the Candace character. Disney is really dropping the ball with regard to merchandising Candace. She is the character who gives the show heart and is an ideal "straight man" for much of the shows humor.
A perfect example of why the Candace character works, is the "Ducky MoMo, is My Friend" song that Candace (Ashley Tisdale) sings during the hilarious "Nerds of a Feather" episode. It has the right balance of comedy and pathos, just like the character.
So...that love of Candace led to me recording Hellcats on my DVR. I'll watch the show this weekend and let you know what I think.
Yes, I'm that guy. The guy who watches Real Housewives and Project Runway -- in addition to Top Gear.
Is it just me, or does Ashley Tisdale looks like Candace in this promo image?
The show is fantastic in all the ways that a cartoon can and should be. It has all the humor of The Family Guy with none of the cynicism. And when it comes right down to it, I think my daughters have it right. The reason the show is so effective is the Candace character. Disney is really dropping the ball with regard to merchandising Candace. She is the character who gives the show heart and is an ideal "straight man" for much of the shows humor.
A perfect example of why the Candace character works, is the "Ducky MoMo, is My Friend" song that Candace (Ashley Tisdale) sings during the hilarious "Nerds of a Feather" episode. It has the right balance of comedy and pathos, just like the character.
So...that love of Candace led to me recording Hellcats on my DVR. I'll watch the show this weekend and let you know what I think.
Yes, I'm that guy. The guy who watches Real Housewives and Project Runway -- in addition to Top Gear.
Is it just me, or does Ashley Tisdale looks like Candace in this promo image?
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Warhammer 3rd at Gen Con
For those who wonder why I am so excited about Warhammer 3rd edition, when there are those who believe that it is a "betrayal" of traditional Warhammer Fantasy -- it isn't -- all you have to do is watch Jay Little's presentation from GenCon.
You can see the designer's love for the game and how his design efforts model the grim setting far better than most people would ever imagine.
You can see the designer's love for the game and how his design efforts model the grim setting far better than most people would ever imagine.
Gaming with Ken St. Andre at Gen Con
A couple of posts ago, I mentioned that some of my first gaming experiences were running "solo" runs of characters through The Keep on the Borderlands. These sessions amounted to me rolling up 5 or 6 D&D characters, covering up the DM map of the Caves of Chaos to hide parts of the map my characters couldn't see, and resolving the mechanics as much as possible.
I had a good time playing this way, though it was nowhere near as fun as playing with friends, and the temptation to "cheat" was surprisingly small. This is likely due to two or three factors. First, I wasn't very personally vested in the personality of any given character. They were ciphers to me. They were about as real as your average RTS "trooper." Second, playing a dungeon solo made the game essentially a logic puzzle with a relatively simple solution -- only the "mechanics" made things difficult. Third, there was very little reward for cheating and the emotional reward for succeeding without cheating outweighed the reward for cheating. Besides, the punishment for failure was making more characters who could then be run through the adventure. It was a fun solitary activity for someone who had friends, but very few who played role playing games.
While I enjoyed running these solitary adventures, there did seem to be something lacking. They were logic puzzles without an "antagonist." In a normal logic puzzle it's your mind against that of the puzzle's creator (with only one solution), but in these solitary runs there were many possible solutions and there didn't feel like there were any "stakes" to the playing. Given enough time using modules written for groups as solo endeavors, I would have likely stopped gaming altogether.
Then I met Mark Williams. Mark had come to Reno from Chicago and he and I shared a lot of interests. One of these interests was role playing games. We became fast friends, but friends who began to compete with each other regarding who could find the next cool thing. Mark was the first to discover Michael Moorcock. I was the first to discover the Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks -- which looked to be the ultimate solution to the solo game experience. (Point of fact, I still highly recommend them.) Then Mark discovered something "better." He discovered the Tunnels and Trolls role playing game which supported both group and solo play, and had some very well designed solo adventures. The humor in the game appealed to our middle school minds -- I still find it appealing -- and the adventures were more "adult" than those in the Fighting Fantasy gamebooks, which made them perfect young boys amped up on teenage hormones.
These solo adventures did vary in quality, but there were a couple that stand out as some of the greatest modules ever written -- City of Terrors, Arena of Khazan, Overkill, and Sewers of Oblivion provided me with hours and hours of enjoyment. What was more, when I played Arena of Khazan it felt like I was playing against someone -- someone with a cruel and darkly humorous mind. The author, Ken St. Andre, killed scores of my characters as I attempted to explore the stories he drafted for players like me. I loved every minute of it. Often "losing" in a Ken St. Andre, or Michael Stackpole, written adventure was more fun than "winning." They were great fun and they are very much responsible for my love of the gaming hobby, as they embody one of the things that the hobby is about -- creating communities across distances.
I had always wanted to game in a "face to face" experience with Ken St. Andre as my game master. I had imagined the dozens of devious devices he would use to bring about my characters' demise. At this year's Gen Con, I finally got the chance when Ken set up a quick pick up game on the floor of the Exhibit hall while he was taking a break from his hard work at the Flying Buffalo booth.
My friend Eric and I, along with a couple of other eager players, sat down with Ken for a brief and fun filled adventure. Typical of a St. Andre adventure, the plot was straightforward and to the point. A wizard had summoned a group of "heroes" from Earth's famous GenCon to help him reacquire the source of his magic. We had only our wits to guide us as we ventured into a goblin lair to help this mysterious magic man acquire an item of great power. Personally, I question how eager we were to help a man we knew nothing about, but as gamers we were used to making snap decisions based on Fantasy tropes "in character." Why not do them ourselves.
Our group did quite well for some time, carefully navigating a couple of Ken's tempting traps. It looked like we all were going to actually live through the adventure. Then came the final puzzle. Ah yes, the final puzzle. It was so obvious, but I knew better than to assume the obvious. Ken had killed me -- in his printed modules -- for assuming the obvious in the past. There had to be some trick, and so our party numbers quickly dwindled as we engaged the puzzle. Eric's character died, a young player's character died, my character died. Then someone assumed the obvious and solved the puzzle.
It was great fun, with a great group of players -- for the most part. There was one player who had the common gamer "I want to be the best and will use the rules however I can to maximize potential for success" attitude. Didn't he know that he was playing Tunnels and Trolls? This game is about whimsy and fun, not about "success." He took things far too seriously, and play suffered briefly for his sternness -- only briefly. By the end, I think he was actually catching on.
Some day I'll do a statistical analysis to show how the rules of T&T actually discourage power gaming, but that is for another time. Let's just say that playing in a Ken St. Andre written/run game is like adventuring in an L. Sprague DeCamp "Enchanter" Story and not like adventuring in a world of Tolkien, Moorcock, or Howard. Fun and humor are the first rules, winning and "drama" are for other writers.
My brief experience with Ken was everything I hoped that it would be and it recaptured the joy that the solo adventures had brought me as a young man. I was simultaneously experiencing fun and nostalgia at the same time, quite like that a fan would experience when his/her childhood baseball team wins the World Series. I both enjoyed the moment, and the memories it brought to mind.
It's rare that we get to thank those who have created the games, movies, books, or shows that we have enjoyed in a personal way. We are often limited to the formal "signing" booth or some other constructed moment that may or may not be remembered by the creator. I'd like to take this time to thank Ken for a great time, both at GenCon and 20 years ago.
I had a good time playing this way, though it was nowhere near as fun as playing with friends, and the temptation to "cheat" was surprisingly small. This is likely due to two or three factors. First, I wasn't very personally vested in the personality of any given character. They were ciphers to me. They were about as real as your average RTS "trooper." Second, playing a dungeon solo made the game essentially a logic puzzle with a relatively simple solution -- only the "mechanics" made things difficult. Third, there was very little reward for cheating and the emotional reward for succeeding without cheating outweighed the reward for cheating. Besides, the punishment for failure was making more characters who could then be run through the adventure. It was a fun solitary activity for someone who had friends, but very few who played role playing games.
While I enjoyed running these solitary adventures, there did seem to be something lacking. They were logic puzzles without an "antagonist." In a normal logic puzzle it's your mind against that of the puzzle's creator (with only one solution), but in these solitary runs there were many possible solutions and there didn't feel like there were any "stakes" to the playing. Given enough time using modules written for groups as solo endeavors, I would have likely stopped gaming altogether.
Then I met Mark Williams. Mark had come to Reno from Chicago and he and I shared a lot of interests. One of these interests was role playing games. We became fast friends, but friends who began to compete with each other regarding who could find the next cool thing. Mark was the first to discover Michael Moorcock. I was the first to discover the Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks -- which looked to be the ultimate solution to the solo game experience. (Point of fact, I still highly recommend them.) Then Mark discovered something "better." He discovered the Tunnels and Trolls role playing game which supported both group and solo play, and had some very well designed solo adventures. The humor in the game appealed to our middle school minds -- I still find it appealing -- and the adventures were more "adult" than those in the Fighting Fantasy gamebooks, which made them perfect young boys amped up on teenage hormones.
These solo adventures did vary in quality, but there were a couple that stand out as some of the greatest modules ever written -- City of Terrors, Arena of Khazan, Overkill, and Sewers of Oblivion provided me with hours and hours of enjoyment. What was more, when I played Arena of Khazan it felt like I was playing against someone -- someone with a cruel and darkly humorous mind. The author, Ken St. Andre, killed scores of my characters as I attempted to explore the stories he drafted for players like me. I loved every minute of it. Often "losing" in a Ken St. Andre, or Michael Stackpole, written adventure was more fun than "winning." They were great fun and they are very much responsible for my love of the gaming hobby, as they embody one of the things that the hobby is about -- creating communities across distances.
I had always wanted to game in a "face to face" experience with Ken St. Andre as my game master. I had imagined the dozens of devious devices he would use to bring about my characters' demise. At this year's Gen Con, I finally got the chance when Ken set up a quick pick up game on the floor of the Exhibit hall while he was taking a break from his hard work at the Flying Buffalo booth.
My friend Eric and I, along with a couple of other eager players, sat down with Ken for a brief and fun filled adventure. Typical of a St. Andre adventure, the plot was straightforward and to the point. A wizard had summoned a group of "heroes" from Earth's famous GenCon to help him reacquire the source of his magic. We had only our wits to guide us as we ventured into a goblin lair to help this mysterious magic man acquire an item of great power. Personally, I question how eager we were to help a man we knew nothing about, but as gamers we were used to making snap decisions based on Fantasy tropes "in character." Why not do them ourselves.
Our group did quite well for some time, carefully navigating a couple of Ken's tempting traps. It looked like we all were going to actually live through the adventure. Then came the final puzzle. Ah yes, the final puzzle. It was so obvious, but I knew better than to assume the obvious. Ken had killed me -- in his printed modules -- for assuming the obvious in the past. There had to be some trick, and so our party numbers quickly dwindled as we engaged the puzzle. Eric's character died, a young player's character died, my character died. Then someone assumed the obvious and solved the puzzle.
It was great fun, with a great group of players -- for the most part. There was one player who had the common gamer "I want to be the best and will use the rules however I can to maximize potential for success" attitude. Didn't he know that he was playing Tunnels and Trolls? This game is about whimsy and fun, not about "success." He took things far too seriously, and play suffered briefly for his sternness -- only briefly. By the end, I think he was actually catching on.
Some day I'll do a statistical analysis to show how the rules of T&T actually discourage power gaming, but that is for another time. Let's just say that playing in a Ken St. Andre written/run game is like adventuring in an L. Sprague DeCamp "Enchanter" Story and not like adventuring in a world of Tolkien, Moorcock, or Howard. Fun and humor are the first rules, winning and "drama" are for other writers.
My brief experience with Ken was everything I hoped that it would be and it recaptured the joy that the solo adventures had brought me as a young man. I was simultaneously experiencing fun and nostalgia at the same time, quite like that a fan would experience when his/her childhood baseball team wins the World Series. I both enjoyed the moment, and the memories it brought to mind.
It's rare that we get to thank those who have created the games, movies, books, or shows that we have enjoyed in a personal way. We are often limited to the formal "signing" booth or some other constructed moment that may or may not be remembered by the creator. I'd like to take this time to thank Ken for a great time, both at GenCon and 20 years ago.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Fantasy Flight Games' City of Thieves Board Game is Beautiful
One of the games that was an absolute "must buy" for me at Gen Con was Fantasy Flight Games' release of Dust Games' City of Thieves board game. From the first time I saw the advertisements online, I was hypnotized by the graphic presentation of the game. City of Thieves uses the art and setting from the Cadwallon setting originally published by Rackham Miniatures.
In essence, it is a game designed by a Hong Kong company, published by an American company, based on a product created by a French company. God I love this strange new world and all the fabulous things in it!
Fantasy Flight Games recently made a video overview of the game available and I thought that I'd share it with you while I was still playing the game for review. I hope to review the game next Monday, but in the meantime I plan on playing at least six runs of the game.
Friday, September 03, 2010
Will Gareth Edwards' MONSTERS Deliver?
I'm pretty excited about the potential of MONSTERS. It is a giant monster film that adds a nice twist to the set up. The monsters have come, they've done their stuff, and the world has "normalized" to deal with the problem. It's essentially, "6 years after the alien invasion and most of the world is the same as before." I like the premise and the trailer looks interesting.
As a Magnolia/Magnet film, it will be released On Demand before it hits the theaters. For a film like this, I think that that is a brilliant move. Sometimes you wait for a film, watch it on the small screen, and then wish you'd seen it on the big screen. When you are the father of twins who has a wife who loves movies as much, if not more, than he does a movie going experience is $100+. It's $25 for admission, $15 snacks, and $60 babysitter. I watched Neil Marshall's CENTURION on demand a month ago, and really want to see it on the big screen. It's currently playing at the Leammle Sunset 5 if anyone is interested in seeing it with me Sunday night. There were a couple of moments I'd like to experience "super sized." Having MONSTERS available on demand will allow me to make a similar decision, and I have high hopes.
As a Magnolia/Magnet film, it will be released On Demand before it hits the theaters. For a film like this, I think that that is a brilliant move. Sometimes you wait for a film, watch it on the small screen, and then wish you'd seen it on the big screen. When you are the father of twins who has a wife who loves movies as much, if not more, than he does a movie going experience is $100+. It's $25 for admission, $15 snacks, and $60 babysitter. I watched Neil Marshall's CENTURION on demand a month ago, and really want to see it on the big screen. It's currently playing at the Leammle Sunset 5 if anyone is interested in seeing it with me Sunday night. There were a couple of moments I'd like to experience "super sized." Having MONSTERS available on demand will allow me to make a similar decision, and I have high hopes.
New D&D Red Box Thoughts (Part 1)
As I mentioned in the last post, I have acquired a copy of the new Introductory Boxed Set for the 4th edition of Dungeons & Dragons. The packaging of this new boxed set is based on the 1980s "Mentzer" Red Box Basic D&D Set that TSR published in 1983 -- it even uses the same cover art. Wizards of the Coast has two hopes for the product.
First, the are hoping that the product serves as a key introductory product for a new generation of gamers and that this Red Box will be as important to these new gamers 17 years from now as the old Red Box is for many current gamers.
Second, they hope that the nostalgia some "hold out" gamer feel regarding the old Red Box will convince them to give the new edition of D&D a try and that the boxed set itself is of sufficient quality to win these hearts and minds.
It should be noted that the similarities between the two boxed sets is more than cosmetic. While both feature the same inspiring Larry Elmore artwork on the cover, both products are also structured in similar ways with regard to how they present the mechanics of the D&D roleplaying game.
Both the new Wyatt edition and the Mentzer edition use a "Choose Your Own Adventure" solo narrative as a method to introduce players to the concept of roleplaying and to the games mechanical systems. It was an innovation when Mentzer utilized it in the 80s, and Wyatt's design team have improved on the method -- if not on the underlying story. There were fewer "design" decisions for players in the Mentzer edition, but the story was more engaging in the older edition. Not to say that the new introductory narrative is bad, but it is "loose" and lacks a significant emotional punch. One doubts that players will be talking about Traevus the merchant in the same tones that older gamers mention Aleena the Cleric and Bargle the mage.
But players of the Mentzer boxed set can't refer to the time they chose between casting a Freezing Burst at goblin raiders or whether they decided to cast Stone Blood which partially solidifies the blood of ones enemies. Both games have their good moments in presentation, and both are effective in presenting the mechanics and a style of play.
Reading the new Red Box, as a 4e player who has been listening to the hushed rumors that this is a launch product for a 4.5 edition and that a 5th edition is only 2 years away, there were a couple of rules changes that jumped right out at me. These changes are purely from the Player's Book, the DM's book has some changes as well but those will be discussed in part 2.
First, in Paragraph 8 (a Fighter paragraph) the text mentions that the Fighter's weapon damage is equal to the weapon die plus both the character's Strength and Constitution bonus. Huh?! Is this a new ability for all Fighters, is this a change to Charge, or is this an error?
Second, I noticed that Humans now have an Encounter Power like all of the other races. The power is called "Human Versatility." While it isn't overpowered, it is a complete change to the human in the Player's Handbook. It isn't enough of a change to warrant 4.5 cries, especially given that it will be added to the "rules update" that is available for free online, but it is striking none the less.
Third, the new build of fighter is interesting and demonstrates one of the changes that Wizards is promoting in the Essentials line. The new Fighter build relies more on his Melee Basic Attack than PHB Fighters, his "at-will Powers" are stances that modify his Basic Attack rather than attacks in and of themselves. I have to say that this is a thematic change that I like. This seems to fit in with the fiction that D&D emulates. Fighters do use "maneuvers" from time to time, but they are more frequently using tactics or styles and the new Powers reflect that thematic element nicely. They also make Fighters easier for new players to play than in the PHB where all classes required equal book keeping.
I'll discuss more as I read through more of the class choices, but I can say that I am impressed with the presentation style of the product. Though it should be pointed out that this is very much an introductory product and that many experienced gamers -- who don't like reading through introductory style presentations -- will not find this product compelling.
Though I am an experienced gamer, I am enjoying this presentation and find it to be far superior to the "Starter Set" Wizards released in 2008. It compares well to the first Red Box so far, though it doesn't quite match the Denning Black Box in my esteem. Though, to be fair, that would be quite a feat.
Second, they hope that the nostalgia some "hold out" gamer feel regarding the old Red Box will convince them to give the new edition of D&D a try and that the boxed set itself is of sufficient quality to win these hearts and minds.
It should be noted that the similarities between the two boxed sets is more than cosmetic. While both feature the same inspiring Larry Elmore artwork on the cover, both products are also structured in similar ways with regard to how they present the mechanics of the D&D roleplaying game.
Both the new Wyatt edition and the Mentzer edition use a "Choose Your Own Adventure" solo narrative as a method to introduce players to the concept of roleplaying and to the games mechanical systems. It was an innovation when Mentzer utilized it in the 80s, and Wyatt's design team have improved on the method -- if not on the underlying story. There were fewer "design" decisions for players in the Mentzer edition, but the story was more engaging in the older edition. Not to say that the new introductory narrative is bad, but it is "loose" and lacks a significant emotional punch. One doubts that players will be talking about Traevus the merchant in the same tones that older gamers mention Aleena the Cleric and Bargle the mage.
But players of the Mentzer boxed set can't refer to the time they chose between casting a Freezing Burst at goblin raiders or whether they decided to cast Stone Blood which partially solidifies the blood of ones enemies. Both games have their good moments in presentation, and both are effective in presenting the mechanics and a style of play.
Reading the new Red Box, as a 4e player who has been listening to the hushed rumors that this is a launch product for a 4.5 edition and that a 5th edition is only 2 years away, there were a couple of rules changes that jumped right out at me. These changes are purely from the Player's Book, the DM's book has some changes as well but those will be discussed in part 2.
First, in Paragraph 8 (a Fighter paragraph) the text mentions that the Fighter's weapon damage is equal to the weapon die plus both the character's Strength and Constitution bonus. Huh?! Is this a new ability for all Fighters, is this a change to Charge, or is this an error?
Second, I noticed that Humans now have an Encounter Power like all of the other races. The power is called "Human Versatility." While it isn't overpowered, it is a complete change to the human in the Player's Handbook. It isn't enough of a change to warrant 4.5 cries, especially given that it will be added to the "rules update" that is available for free online, but it is striking none the less.
Third, the new build of fighter is interesting and demonstrates one of the changes that Wizards is promoting in the Essentials line. The new Fighter build relies more on his Melee Basic Attack than PHB Fighters, his "at-will Powers" are stances that modify his Basic Attack rather than attacks in and of themselves. I have to say that this is a thematic change that I like. This seems to fit in with the fiction that D&D emulates. Fighters do use "maneuvers" from time to time, but they are more frequently using tactics or styles and the new Powers reflect that thematic element nicely. They also make Fighters easier for new players to play than in the PHB where all classes required equal book keeping.
I'll discuss more as I read through more of the class choices, but I can say that I am impressed with the presentation style of the product. Though it should be pointed out that this is very much an introductory product and that many experienced gamers -- who don't like reading through introductory style presentations -- will not find this product compelling.
Though I am an experienced gamer, I am enjoying this presentation and find it to be far superior to the "Starter Set" Wizards released in 2008. It compares well to the first Red Box so far, though it doesn't quite match the Denning Black Box in my esteem. Though, to be fair, that would be quite a feat.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
The Kübler-Ross Stages of Grief, D&D Encounters, and Me
Those of you who read this blog, may have noticed that I devoted two posts last week to my feelings about the D&D Encounters program. While I don't think my posts were as filled with internet anonymity syndrome and ranting ire as other blogs, I did notice upon reflection that my reaction seemed to match the first two stages of the Kübler-Ross stages of grief.
I normally think of myself as too reflective to be caught up in this model of behavior over something so small -- in the grand scheme -- as whether or not I can buy a copy of the D&D Encounters version of KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS. Apparently I was wrong.
The two posts are filled with Denial and Anger. "They can't do that," "This aggravates me," and other similar statements are scattered throughout the two posts. I'm really quite taken aback by how much these two posts exhibit the emotions expressed in the first two stages of grief, but did I continue through the stages?
In a word...Yes. Yes, I did. I have finally come to acceptance, but not mere "that's okay" acceptance. They got me but good...
Let me explain.
On Saturday, I began bargaining. Not the kind of bargaining that I did in the second post, which was of the "If I express disappointment in the proper tone, maybe they'll release KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS for sale at a later date." No, this was genuine "should I go to a D&D Encounters event and should I see how my schedule this fall lines up with the whole Wednesday schedule" bargaining. I was even wondering if my local store would allow D&D Encounters on Thursdays or Fridays, as one of the commenters here mentioned. I was full on negotiating.
I don't think I ever really experienced depression, at least not in any strong way -- this isn't that important after all. But I did feel a little "remorse" that I am currently not getting to game as much as I want, and that is similar.
So, I decided to do something about it. I went to a D&D Encounters event at my local store. A very nice employee, who is far more familiar with 3.5 and Pathfinder rules than with 4e rules, ran a session for me and four other gamers. The other four players -- a college aged "min/maxer" who typically plays 3.5, a 30 something man who was there to have a good time, and two tween-age girls -- had all participated in the other adventures of the season, but all were relatively new to the rules set. All of them got the concept of roleplaying and having a good time, but none had an encyclopedic knowledge of 4e's rules.
In other words, the group was exactly the audience the program aims to recruit -- one hardcore lapsed gamer, a casual gamer, and two new gamers.
For this group of players, with their level of rules knowledge and expertise, the encounter was quite challenging. Given the GM's lack of familiarity with the rules set, he could only help them in their decision making so much -- and he did his best. I quickly found myself giving small pieces of advice to the newer gamers, but not making their decisions for them (only helping when they asked what something meant and opening discussing my intentions when I acted). We finished the encounter, by the skin of our teeth, and I had a great time.
It was everything my gaming jones needed. It was one of those wonderful, clumsy, new, exploratory gaming sessions you can only have when you have new players experimenting with what they can do. It was great fun with a great group of people.
When I came home from the event, I realized something had happened. I had come to accept D&D Encounters as a vital thing. So much so that I'll be going next week and for many weeks to come -- overall attendance depends on my MBA schedule, but for this quarter Wednesdays are free.
I have not only accepted D&D Encounters, I have fully embraced them. I can't wait to play KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS with this group. I am eager to see what it is like to witness an adventure that introduced me to the hobby through they eyes of people who have no idea what the CAVES OF CHAOS are.
I'm picking up a Red Box in anticipation.
Damn you Wizards!
I normally think of myself as too reflective to be caught up in this model of behavior over something so small -- in the grand scheme -- as whether or not I can buy a copy of the D&D Encounters version of KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS. Apparently I was wrong.
The two posts are filled with Denial and Anger. "They can't do that," "This aggravates me," and other similar statements are scattered throughout the two posts. I'm really quite taken aback by how much these two posts exhibit the emotions expressed in the first two stages of grief, but did I continue through the stages?
In a word...Yes. Yes, I did. I have finally come to acceptance, but not mere "that's okay" acceptance. They got me but good...
Let me explain.
On Saturday, I began bargaining. Not the kind of bargaining that I did in the second post, which was of the "If I express disappointment in the proper tone, maybe they'll release KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS for sale at a later date." No, this was genuine "should I go to a D&D Encounters event and should I see how my schedule this fall lines up with the whole Wednesday schedule" bargaining. I was even wondering if my local store would allow D&D Encounters on Thursdays or Fridays, as one of the commenters here mentioned. I was full on negotiating.
I don't think I ever really experienced depression, at least not in any strong way -- this isn't that important after all. But I did feel a little "remorse" that I am currently not getting to game as much as I want, and that is similar.
So, I decided to do something about it. I went to a D&D Encounters event at my local store. A very nice employee, who is far more familiar with 3.5 and Pathfinder rules than with 4e rules, ran a session for me and four other gamers. The other four players -- a college aged "min/maxer" who typically plays 3.5, a 30 something man who was there to have a good time, and two tween-age girls -- had all participated in the other adventures of the season, but all were relatively new to the rules set. All of them got the concept of roleplaying and having a good time, but none had an encyclopedic knowledge of 4e's rules.
In other words, the group was exactly the audience the program aims to recruit -- one hardcore lapsed gamer, a casual gamer, and two new gamers.
For this group of players, with their level of rules knowledge and expertise, the encounter was quite challenging. Given the GM's lack of familiarity with the rules set, he could only help them in their decision making so much -- and he did his best. I quickly found myself giving small pieces of advice to the newer gamers, but not making their decisions for them (only helping when they asked what something meant and opening discussing my intentions when I acted). We finished the encounter, by the skin of our teeth, and I had a great time.
It was everything my gaming jones needed. It was one of those wonderful, clumsy, new, exploratory gaming sessions you can only have when you have new players experimenting with what they can do. It was great fun with a great group of people.
When I came home from the event, I realized something had happened. I had come to accept D&D Encounters as a vital thing. So much so that I'll be going next week and for many weeks to come -- overall attendance depends on my MBA schedule, but for this quarter Wednesdays are free.
I have not only accepted D&D Encounters, I have fully embraced them. I can't wait to play KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS with this group. I am eager to see what it is like to witness an adventure that introduced me to the hobby through they eyes of people who have no idea what the CAVES OF CHAOS are.
I'm picking up a Red Box in anticipation.
Damn you Wizards!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)